Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

NEW DELHI: India and the United Kingdom have jointly developed a combat ready aircraft that will be on offer to neighbouring countries, countering growing Chinese penetration of the defence market in the region.

A jointly developed, dual role version of the Hawk trainer aircraft will make its debut later this month, with an Indo-UK combine targeting export markets for the versatile plane.

Airbus’ industrial partnerships with Indian companies under the ‘Make in India’ programme will set the tone of its participation at the 11th edition of Aero India to be held at the Air Force Station Yelahanka, Bengaluru, India from 14th -18th of February 2017.

Pierre de Bausset, President and Managing Director at Airbus India, said: “The future of Indian aerospace and defence industry rests on the realization of the ‘Make in India’ vision. I look forward to having conversations around the topic at Aero India. We have partnered with Tata and Mahindra and are working with a host of other companies to script ‘Make in India’ success stories.”

Visitors at the Airbus stand will get a first-hand account of Airbus’ industrial engagement with India which yields over $500 million (approx. Rs. 3,400 crores) in procurement from India annually from around 45 suppliers, generating local employment for more than 6,000 people. To illustrate the scale of co-operation, Airbus can claim that each of its commercial aircraft produced today is partly Made-in-India.

The potential of Airbus & India partnership is bigger and this will be exhibited in the form of scale models of the C295W military transport aircraft and the AS565 MBe Panther helicopter.

As part of the Avro replacement programme of the Ministry of Defence, Airbus will support Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) in setting-up a final assembly line for the C295W in India, once the contract is awarded. Airbus has tied-up with Mahindra Defence to create India’s first private sector company for manufacturing military helicopters. Making India the global hub for ‘Panther’ manufacturing – producing Panthers in India, for the domestic market as well as for exports – is proposed under the Naval Utility Helicopter programme.

According to Airbus, there are around 590 A320neo on order from India which means, on overage, one aircraft will be delivered to India per week over the next 10 years.

If Govt is really committed to the 'Make in India' programme, why not give a subsidy and get these assembled in India.

The India-US Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) to jointly develop and manufacture US military equipment in India has registered incremental progress since its initiation in 2012.

Aimed at furthering defence co-operation between two strategic allies, shorn of bureaucratic delays from either side, the DTTI has languished owing to enduring shortcomings by the respective entities that co-ordinate the initiative, according to industry sources.

This includes vacillation in decision-making by India's Department of Defence Production (DDP), which functions under the Ministry of Defence (MoD), and concerns that the US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, or USD (AT&L), has been offering low-grade technologies.

yeah, we should cut vat/taxes and give subsidy to Airbus orders produced within the country. There is a huge scope for producing airbus 3XX orders in India. This is what the private industry should focus on. Getting a piece of this pie makes absolute sense by getting Reliance/Tatas/Mahindras involved.

Singha wrote:china got itself the tianjin a320 final assembly line to learn and steal from on the back of similar few 100 orders a decade ago.

time to play hardball with airbus than just give our money away

China has a huge domestic narrow body market where they can afford to play hardball with EU/Airbus to build a local plant there , We dont have such huge domestic airline and we cant browbeat the likes of Indigo,Spicejet to buy why GOI wants them too

Surprising they now will be building A-330 , I guess China is truly a manufacturing hub for the biggies

These are for multiple private players who negotiate separately with Airbus or Boeing for their own requirement and terms of lease/purchase , These players would be more interested in getting the aircraft delivered on time and with attractive loans/lease options rather then where it is made. Even GOI flagship carrier are more than happy to divide the order between boeing and airbus to show they are neutral to both. Aircraft Assembling/Manufacturing in India must be the last thing in their mind

GOI could tweak customs duty to promote domestic manufacture. Given the size of the Indian market, they will be forced to setup some manufacturing. Unless this runs foul of WTO. My 2 cents, am no expert but take it FWIW.

In a major step towards speeding up defence deals and urgently meeting critical requirements of the armed forces, PM Narendra Modi has enhanced defence minister Manohar Parrikar's financial muscle by four times, allowing him to buy weapon systems and platforms worth Rs 2,000 crore at his own discretion.

This is a huge jump from the existing fund of Rs 500 crore that was given to the defence minister under the UPA government.

'At a recent meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security, the Prime Minister cleared the proposal to increase the financial power of the defence minister from the existing Rs 500 crore to Rs 2,000 crore,' senior government sources told Mail Today here.

The decision is made to fast-track the speed of weapon acquisition

The decision by the Prime Minister is going to significantly fast-track the speed of weapon acquisition as many defence deals can be completed at the level of the defence ministry and there would no need to take them to the Cabinet Committee on Security, the sources said.

Till now, all the defence deals worth over Rs 1,000 crore had to be cleared at the level of the CCS which is headed by the Prime Minister and includes the unions ministers for defence, home, finance and external affairs.

The Prime minister also cleared many other proposals related to the financial decision made by his ministers as he has given the defence minister and the finance minister the power to jointly clear defence acquisitions worth up to Rs 3,000 crores.

This would mean that at least 60-70 per cent of the deals related to the defence sector would be cleared at the ministerial level, the sources said.

PM Modi has given Manohar Parrikar more discretion over defence acquisitions

So far, the two ministers could jointly clear deals worth Rs 1,000 crore but this has now been enhanced by three times, they said.

With the new arrangements in place, the Cabinet Committee on Security will only take up acquisition cases which are worth over Rs 3,000 crore, the sources said.

The new financial rules will help the defence ministry give contracts for several weapon systems, especially for tank ammunition and small arms requirements, such as rifles and small range missiles, and also help cut down the time taken for getting clearance from the Cabinet Committee on Security.

'This is going to save at least a few months in the long-lasting defence acquisition process,' the sources said.

You can't simply be making deals with strategic national security providers in most of these cases just because they had a bad quarter. Why not go for IAI since it had a loss the past quarter? Even when deals are inked there are firewalls put in place to ensure that nothing of strategic importance or that was funded by CRAD or IRAD related to the host nation's national security apparatus is transferred or transferable . Case in point, BAE in the US. It as a company is a collection of General Electric, Lockheed Martin and a few other strategically important firms assets but the UK cannot use any of that technology or even built up systems whether that is the sensitive technology going into F-22 or F-35 Electronic Warfare suites or the EM railgun. There is a firewall between and it is closely monitored and regulated.

You don't need to acquire interest in a company if you want to licence manufacturer a product from it. For that you need a well laid out, solid business case and government approval from the host nation. Timely delivery is a function of contract negotiations and having penalties in place that protect the buyer. It comes down to drafting proper contracts and enforcing them in case a vendor does not perform as per the signed agreement.

But hey two heavyweights posted recent losses. IAI last year, and RR announced a pre tax $4.5 Billion loss

India’s HAL has quietly taken forward what is apparently its least known aircraft development effort. In fact, you’re likely hearing about it for the first time here on Livefist: a seaplane variant of the Dornier Do-228 light transport aircraft that HAL builds under license at Kanpur. It started in October 2015 — a year after India and Japan announced negotiations on the US-2 — when HAL quietly called the attention of global airframers and design houses proposing a partnership to design a seaplane around the Do-228 platform. The spare 13-page RFI plainly stated that HAL was looking to put the Do-228 out to sea and wanted help re-designing the platform for the role, while providing tech specs of aircraft.While HAL hasn’t revealed what the RFI resulted in, it became clear earlier this month that the company is still interested in pursuing plans of spinning off an amphibious aircraft. Three aeronautical engineers from HAL’s Aircraft Research & Design Centre (ARDC) in Bengaluru presented a paper at the Aero India Seminar this month titled ‘Conceptual Design of Amphibious Aircraft’. The paper, Livefist has learnt, offered what HAL described as ‘An optimized design approach addressing key features like hydrostatic stability, dynamic stability, wave handling, and water performance is conceptualized with due care for aerodynamic characteristics and overall performance figures‘.A fleet of over 100 Do-228 aircraft currently fly with the Indian Navy, Indian Air Force and Indian Coast Guard, with more on order. HAL has also indicated it will be unveiling a civilian version of the aircraft later this year.

Unmade in India Sandeep Unnithan With strategic partnerships paving the way for joint ventures between Indian and foreign firms, the weak link is slow decision-making in the defence ministry, which hands out the contracts.

In February 15, the Indian Space Research Organisation's (ISRO) workhorse PSLV rocket thundered off a launch pad at Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh, for a record-making mission. The rocket disgorged 104 satellites into space, 101 of them for foreign customers. Just the day before, on February 14, global arms firms had converged on Bengaluru for the biennial four-day Aero India 2017 air show to display their fighter jets, helicopters and drones to the Indian armed forces, who are looking to buy military hardware worth over $100 billion over the next decade.

These two recent events, just a day apart and entirely unrelated, illustrate the gap between India's capabilities. Entirely self-sufficient as a space power yet utterly dependent on imported arms for its military power. India has the world's third largest military, and with a Rs 2.74 lakh crore defence budget this year, it is also the world's sixth largest spender on defence. However, nearly 60 per cent of its military hardware is imported. India has often held the title of the 'world's largest arms importer', and between 2012 and 2016, the country accounted for 13 per cent of all global arms exports. Figures tabled by the government in the Lok Sabha put the value of arms imports at Rs 82,496 crore between 2013 and 2016. Even as the government pitches for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, it cannot but be aware of a cruel irony-it is effectively a net importer of security from four of the five permanent members.

The reason for these imports is a capacity and capability gap. India's defence production base - a vast, lumbering network of arms factories, shipyards and laboratories with 200,000 employees - is unable to meet the requirements of the military. India's Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) will supply arms and ammunition worth Rs 57,000 crore this year, but this will be insufficient to meet the requirements of the armed forces. This gap is bridged by off-the-shelf imports, which do not result in technology gains for Indian industry. This was one of the main reasons that defence production was one of the 25 sectors identified by the Modi government's economic plan to boost the share of manufacturing in GDP to 25 per cent (from 16 per cent), and create 100 million additional jobs.

Make in India is easily the most comprehensive effort thus far to reverse such import dependence. In the past three years, the government has unveiled a slew of measures on this count, from opening up the defence sector to FDI of 49 per cent (and above in certain cases), to introducing an Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured (IDDM) category to promote indigenous manufacture.

The challenges and investments required-to create technology, product development capabilities and infrastructure-outside the public sector are significant and hence will take time. Private sector involvement is minuscule at present, accounting for less than 5 per cent of the total defence pie. The government, therefore, has roped in private sector firms, hoping to transform them from second-rung players into independent defence entities capable of delivering defence equipment on their own. Over the past two years, the government has withdrawn the preferential treatment given to DPSUs, like excise and customs duty waivers, to create a level playing field with the private sector. While there is tremendous movement on the policy front, there is little implementation. At least three major contracts-for building landing platform docks (ships that can transport troops and military vehicles); for the development of battlefield management systems that allow mobile military formations to communicate with each other; and for constructing modern diesel-electric submarines-are yet to be awarded, though it has been over a decade since they were conceived.

The defence ministry says this is because it is yet to approve a key policy for strategic partnerships, recommended by a task force it appointed in 2016. The strategic partnerships call for the creation of joint-venture concerns between private sector firms and foreign partners in broad areas of defence platforms, networks, weapons and materials. After shuttling between the bureaucrats in the MoD, the file has now been sent to the finance ministry for another opinion-an example of what one private sector CEO calls "classic bureaucratic procrastination". "Bureaucratic apathy is among the biggest hurdles to the government achieving its Make in India targets," warns Laxman Kumar Behera, a research fellow who tracks military expenditure at the New Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).

Another significant obstacle to the government's Make in India policy is the lack of orders placed with the Indian private sector. At least 10 proposals, worth billions of dollars, that aim to equip the armed forces with modern infantry combat vehicles, communication systems, howitzers, helicopters and fighter jets, are still in the pipeline.

The requirements of the armed forces are enormous. An April 2013 study titled 'A Technology, Perspective and Capability Roadmap', prepared by the triservice Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff, assessed India's requirements for high technology military hardware, drones, precision weapons, radars, guns, sensors and aircraft at around $100 billion over the next 15 years.

Addressing a press conference at Aero India, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said the armed forces needed approximately 400 fighter jets and 800 to 1,000 helicopters over the next decade. "Our helicopter engine requirement in 10 years is 5,000, and we will need over 400 LCA (light combat aircraft) engines [as well], all these aspects open huge potential," he said. But until these orders are placed, these numbers are but pies in the sky.

According to Parrikar, his ministry's indigenisation targets are on course. "The target is 70 per cent indigenisation, as per the recommendations of the Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam committee. That will take four to five years. By the end of the term of this government, we should touch 60 per cent," he said (see interview).

This year's defence budget, however, registered a modest 5 per cent increase-barely enough to meet inflation. It was only 1.62 per cent of the GDP. "This is the lowest since the disastrous 1962 war with China when it was 1.59 per cent of the GDP, and grossly inadequate to meet India's growing military modernisation challenges," warns military analyst Brig. Gurmeet Kanwal (retired). The next budget, the NDA's last before the onset of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, is unlikely to be any different. "There is no clarity on whether what this government is doing is different from the previous government," says Amit Cowshish, former financial advisor in the defence ministry. "There is no clear-cut Make in India in defence. It's just a rehash of earlier policies with cosmetic changes." With stagnant budgets and orders caught up in red tape, the government's Make in India dream for defence runs the risk of remaining a slogan.

Over the past year, India's diplomats and military officials have tried to stall a proposed sale of 24 China-Pakistan made JF-17 'Thunder' jets to Sri Lanka. New Delhi's anxiety over the sale, and the reason why it has pitted its homegrown Tejas Light Combat Aircraft as an alternative to the China-Pakistan fighter jet, is grounded in Beijing's recent successes in gaining influence in India's traditional sphere of influence in South Asia. In 2014, China sold two second-hand diesel-electric submarines to Bangladesh, ensuring a toe-hold on India's eastern flank. India, whose navy has not acquired a new submarine in 17 years, had none to offer.

Such shortfalls may seem paradoxical in a country that boasts of one of the world's largest military-industrial complexes-comprising 41 ordnance factories, eight DPSUs and 52 research laboratories-producing everything from submarines to assault rifles.

But this impressive scale masks a Faustian bargain. Most of the equipment they produce is under licence from foreign firms. A 2014 in-house report of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) notes that close to 90 per cent of its Rs 13,500 crore turnover comes from technology developed outside the organisation.

The backbone of the Indian air force, navy and army is made up of nearly 250 Su-30MKI jets, nine Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines and over 2,000 T-72/ T-90 main battle tanks respectively. Russian original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have given Hindustan Aeronautics Limited's (HAL) Ozar facility in Nashik the know how to assemble the Su-30MKI in India, and to the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, to assemble the T-90 tanks. But because they won't part with the 'know-why'-the product design, or the source code of a particular design (between 60 and 80 per cent of the value of a platform)-India cannot even upgrade the platforms without consulting the OEM, and is in a perpetual lock-in with the seller through the life of the product.

"Lifecycle costs of a platform are the great multiplier," explains the CEO of a private sector firm. "For any platform, the life cycle cost (the product servicing and refurbishment) is between four and seven times the acquisition cost. This ensures huge profits for the manufacturer through the life of the product." This dependence continues over the life of the combat jet, the warship or the battle tank, and is the main reason arms sales have become an adjunct of foreign policy for global powers to cultivate clout.

Poor investments in research and development-the OFB, for instance, invests only 0.7 per cent of its budget in R&D against a requirement of at least 3 per cent-make the dependence permanent. A 2016 IDSA study, 'Indian Defence Industry-an Agenda for Making in India', notes that four of the nine DPSUs do not own a single patent or copyright. In comparison, airplane major Boeing claimed over 1,000 patents for a single programme, the 787 Dreamliner.

It's not just platforms, however. DPSUs are critically dependent on imported components to make indigenous platforms. Over the past five years, state-owned aerospace monolith HAL imported 90 per cent of aircraft parts, components and raw materials.

A 2014 Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report found that the OFB had a miserable record of indigenisation-in two such examples, it managed only 59 of 78 codes for the main assemblies of T-90 tanks and could indigenise just 47 per cent of 84mm rocket launchers imported from Sweden. India's eight DPSUs have an average productivity of around $67,000. This is one-fifth of the global average. The top five arms producing companies in the world have an average labour productivity of $370,000.

Delays by the public sector arms factories happen so often that the armed forces have to resort to emergency imports. In October, just days after the surgical strikes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, India's defence ministry initiated a massive off-the-shelf import of arms and ammunition from Russia and Israel, worth nearly $3 billion. The OFB had failed to meet the army's 2013 projections for Rs 40,771 crore worth of ammunition for five years between 2013 and 2019, necessitating the import.

With strategic partnerships paving the way for joint ventures between Indian and foreign firms, the weak link is slow decision-making in the defence ministry, which hands out the contracts. A private sector CEO mentions how private sector proposals take between nine months to a year to get approved because the MoD regards them with suspicion.

At the recent Gateway of India Geo-economic Dialogue, private sector panelists, particularly foreign defence companies, pointed to challenges like procurement issues and offset difficulties in India's defence sector. "Addressing these issues will be critical to developing India's own defence industrial base through Make in India," says Sameer Patil, fellow, National Security Studies at the Mumbai-based think-tank Gateway House. Private sector participation to boost indigenous content is a no-brainer. It could well be the government's hidden ace in its rivalry with China.

Among the cornerstones of ISRO's success has been involving the private sector in building rockets and the creation of a large vendor base that supplies key components for its space programme. ISRO's track record is instructive for its defence ministry counterpart, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). This, as well as the government's decision to create a model for private participation in design, integration and manufacture has caused the DRDO and public sector enterprises to become efficient and aggressive, says Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP and member of the parliamentary standing committee on defence. "Which is the real objective-because at least for the conceivable short to medium term, companies like HAL, BEL, BDL and shipyards like MDL will remain important vendors to our military preparedness," he says. The IDDM category, which the MoD's defence procurement policy seeks to encourage, is a rare category in India.

Both the LCA and the Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter use imported engines. Apart from lightly armed patrol vessels, the DRDO owns the intellectual property for just two weapons systems-the Pinaka multiple rocket system and the Akash surface to air missile system, guided by the Rajendra radar system, both of which have been offered for export to Vietnam. Both these weapons systems were developed by public-private partnerships-the Pinaka launchers by a consortium of L&T and Tata Power SED; Akash by Bharat Electricals and Tata Power. The best example of public and private sector cooperation also remains India's best-kept secret. Three Arihant-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) are being constructed by a consortium of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, the Indian navy and private sector firms in Visakhapatnam. The lead ship of the class, the INS Arihant, was inducted into the navy last year. The indigenous SSBNs have achieved up to 70 per cent indigenous content. In sharp contrast, the much smaller Scorpene diesel-electric submarines, six of which are being licence-produced from France at Mazagon Docks, feature an indigenous content of less than 30 per cent.

RDO's Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS) is being developed by a Tata-Bharat Forge consortium. When it is ready for induction, in five years, it will give the country a world-class 155 mm towed howitzer for export. The DRDO's 'Netra' AEW&CS, handed over to the IAF at Aero India, was developed at less than half the $241 million cost of the four Swedish Ericsson Erieye AEW radars sold to Pakistan and has tremendous export potential.

The defence industry is a monopsony and a monopoly at the same time-the government is the single largest manufacturer as well as the only buyer. The government has attempted to dilute its monopoly by introducing private players into defence since 2001, but its commitment to a level-playing field falls flat in the absence of orders.

For nearly a decade now, the MoD has debated over a stack of military orders that will add muscle to the machine (see graphic: Stuck in the Pipeline). The force multiplier effect of each such order on the country's industrial ecosystem will be tremendous. It will create thousands of jobs in the sector, particularly among MSMEs, which make up 80 per cent of India's private defence capabilities. One private sector official estimates that the combined Rs 1.2 lakh crore value of the three 'Make' projects-for an FICV (Future Infantry Combat Vehicle), the battlefield management system and the tactical communication system-would add one GDP point to the Indian economy and actually realise the government's Make in India dream.

Over the past two years, private sector firms Ashok Leyland and Tata Motors have nearly eliminated the monopoly enjoyed by public sector BEML's controversial TATRA vehicles. The two private sector firms have snapped up contracts for 1,694 HMVs worth Rs 1,284 crore for towing field artillery guns and for mobile rocket launchers. But without more such big ticket orders, private players can get easily crowded out of the defence space.

The orders are held up for various reasons. A recent order to produce 56 medium transport aircraft within the country, the first aerospace venture by the private sector, has been held up for over a year. This is because the MoD wants only 56 aircraft, but the sole bidders for the project, a Tata-Airbus consortium, wanted a minimum order of 100 to make the project viable. A Rs 20,000 crore project to modernise infantry by giving soldiers high-tech gear, including modern rifles, mineproof boots and wearable computers, has been stuck for over a decade. Private firms were to play a major role in this contract, believed to be delayed because of internal army issues.

The MoD, meanwhile, continues to hand multi-billion dollar deals to the public sector, without any competition. In two recent deals, Goa Shipyard bagged a lucrative Rs 32,000 crore order for building mine counter-measure vessels for the Indian navy while Hindustan Shipyard bagged a naval order for five fleet support ships at Rs 9,000 crore.

Soon after taking over as defence minister in November 2014, Parrikar commissioned multiple committees to assess the problems plaguing his ministry. Four out of eight of these committees dealt either directly or indirectly with his government's Make in India mission. The committees came back with a sheaf of recommendations, which led to policies for strategic partnerships in the private sector. However, at least one private sector CEO questions this model and believes it will mean replacing public sector monopolies with private sector ones. "In the short run,"he says, "they'll be beneficial to the armed forces as they will get an alternative supply source for hardware, but in the long run it won't bring the country any benefits as 49 per cent of the technology will still be in the control of a foreign concern. They control knowledge flow, and will block any new technology from coming up."

Turnarounds are not impossible. China, the world's largest arms importer a decade ago, is today the world's third largest arms exporter. Beijing achieved this by setting into motion a comprehensive multi-pronged policy beginning in the mid-1990s, where they acquired sensitive military technology and expertise, sometimes through dubious means, and absorbed it into local industry to create a range of defence equipment.

Technology absorption is where South Block's key technology tool, defence offsets, falters. The offset policy mandates that the foreign equipment seller buy 30 per of the value of defence contracts over $300 million from the local market. Last year, the MoD projected contractual offset obligations worth over $4 billion from its defence imports. Critical deficiencies in the policy as highlighted by India's CAG in a report to Parliament in November 2012-zero value addition, equipment transfer, invalid selection of Indian Offset Partner (IOP) and weak monitoring mechanism-are yet to be addressed.

But for Make in India to succeed, DPSUs need to be transformed. Measures suggested by the committees include corporatising them and giving them more financial autonomy, boosting R&D spend and laying out a roadmap to progressively reduce their dependence on imports. Experts say indigenisation of 50-60 per cent by 2027 is easily attainable; but only if the MoD's policy reforms are taken to their logical conclusion and implemented in letter and spirit. The question is, when.

I haven't read the whole article properly and perhaps I should before typing this.

Average productivity doesn't seem like an apt comparison of top five private orgs to govt labs. Shouldn't that be govt to govt lab comparison?

"India's eight DPSUs have an average productivity of around $67,000. This is one-fifth of the global average. The top five arms producing companies in the world have an average labour productivity of $370,000."

That statement seems to imply global average, but isn't that the average of the top five?

This deals with the notion of Total factor of productivity and IMO, a more apt comparison would be of similar govt or private organizations within India to show what the difference is while controlling for other factors.

This point is pretty valid "However, at least one private sector CEO questions this model and believes it will mean replacing public sector monopolies with private sector ones. "In the short run,"he says, "they'll be beneficial to the armed forces as they will get an alternative supply source for hardware, but in the long run it won't bring the country any benefits as 49 per cent of the technology will still be in the control of a foreign concern. They control knowledge flow, and will block any new technology from coming up."

Unnithan fudges up badly by making no distinction between DPSUs and putting DRDO as part of the DPSU complex, when the latter has 1-1.6 L crore of orders in the past two-three years alone, dwarfing the amount spent on it. That is what allows the DPSU complex to rest easy since core R&D is done at DRDO or elsewhere which they often TOT.

For an accurate analysis, he should have analyzed BEL, BDL, HAL etc and OFB seperately and drawn comparisons between R&D spend, real profit (versus dividends declared) and also seen what Parrikar is doing to make them invest in serviceability. Instead we get the usual mish mash of moans, gripes and industry lobbying, cursing the MOD and no clear analysis. This is the level of our "best" journalists:Apart from lightly armed patrol vessels, the DRDO owns the intellectual property for just two weapons systems-the Pinaka multiple rocket system and the Akash surface to air missile system, guided by the Rajendra radar system, both of which have been offered for export to Vietnam. And the Arjun, umpteen other sensors, systems all dont count, including other exports like the BFSR-SR or Abhay sonar. Which patrol vessels does DRDO own any IP for anyhow? Those are shipyard owned.

There are effectively two-three tiers of DPSUs with differing managements and responses. BEL, HAL, BDL are MOD driven but do respond and are gradually moving on the right path. OFB remains a mess. Other DPSUs which are actually not owned by MOD, mostly like ECIL are also pretty ok in terms of understanding importance of R&D and creating local IP. In private sector, large firms, apart from Tata power SED, Tata ASL and L&T, others have a very limited footprint. Kalyani, Walchandnagar being other niche firms with limited footprint. Unnithan's verbose article apart, the fact remains we are looking at least a decade of JVs before any prvt firms can stand up to DPSUs across the spectrum. Problem for GOI is to have this happen without being seen to be crony capitalist or favoring one group over the other. With limited capex, its not like you can have the same kind of items being made by 3-4 firms either. And then asking 2 firms to do it, one public, one private invites accusations of being pro-Ambani, or Adani or whatever.The answer then is have a clear roadmap of all programs and let all firms compete for them & the private firms should be able to tie up with DPSUs and also have management say in terms of program execution. That can reduce capex and can be implemented via Brahmos type special purpose vehicles. DRDO itself took a hard look at existing Indian PSU & Pvt setup and hence created Brahmos despite having private and public sub-assembly partners. No reason why private and public firms can't do likewise & utilize existing infra to do so. And state funding means the state should retain control over whom the IP is shared with.

So now we have corners in left and right in defense as well! What's this all about left and right in Indian context anyways? It's only pro-india and anti-india. This left and right thing is only giving undue legitimacy to the traitors.

Note: I know it's the article's language and not arnabh's. Sorry for OT.

that entire article is verbose BS. as if israel ever stopped sharing stuff with prc because of india as cersus US pressure. now one IAI factory and sky is falling. as versus lavi, phalcon tech etc all making way to prc. author us yet another leftist intellectual making a hue and cry ovwr literally nothing new.

The DRDO, which has plodded clumsily through the difficult art of hawking its products to a global market beyond the enormous captive market it enjoys in country, will soon have a commercial arm to call its own. Livefist can confirm that BrahMos Corp. will for the interim take over commercial export processing duties for the DRDO, with the possibility of a separate entity being spun off down the line. A detailed paper on precisely how BrahMos Corp. will clear the decks for commerce is currently under preparation by BrahMos CEO Sudhir Mishra and is to be cleared up the chain of MoD command on a fast-track basis.

This is good news. I'm happy to see that both HAL (with self-funded HTT-40 etc) and DRDO are thinking commercial.However, I hope they will ensure that Brahmos is just a marketing arm and doesn't eat up significant %age of proceeds ('coz Russians own almost half of Brahmos).

NEW DELHI: India will go in for the multi-billion dollar joint development and production of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) with Russia only if there is full-scale transfer of technology as well as "benefits" for the indigenous effort to build a futuristic stealth fighter.Defence ministry sources say this decision has been taken at the "highest levels" in order to "not repeat the mistakes" of the entire Sukhoi-30MKI jet acquisition programme from Russia, which cost India Rs 55,717 crore without any tangible help in developing indigenous fighter-manufacturing capabilities."Though bulk of the 272 Sukhois (240 inducted till now) contracted from Russia have been made by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), they have been basically assembled here with imported knocked-down kits. HAL still cannot manufacture the Sukhois on its own," said a source. A HAL-made Sukhoi (around Rs 450 crore) also costs Rs 100 crore more than the price of the same jet imported from Russia.So, despite Russian pressure to ink the long-pending final R&D contract for the FGFA, India now wants to know whether it will get good value for the estimated $25 billion it will spend to induct 127 of these single-seat jets. The two countries, incidentally, had inked the FGFA inter-governmental agreement way back in 2007, which was followed by a $295 million preliminary design contract in 2010 before the negotiations stalled.India has now laid down two essential prerequisites for the FGFA project, apart from examining its entire cost-effectiveness. One, there should be extensive technology transfer, including the "source codes", to ensure India can in the future upgrade the fighter with integration of new weapons on its own. Two, it should directly help the indigenous FGFA project called the advanced medium combat aircraft (AMCA), the preliminary design work for which is now under way, as was earlier reported by TOI."This is mandatory. A high-level committee headed by an Air Marshal from IAF, which includes an IIT Kanpur professor and former chiefs of HAL and National Aerospace Laboratories, is examining all these aspects. The government will take a call after the report is submitted in April," said the source. A swing-role FGFA basically combines advanced stealth, supercruise capability (achieving supersonic cruise speeds without use of afterburners), super-maneuverability, data fusion and multi-sensor integration on a single fighter.But IAF has been unhappy with the Russian FGFA called Sukhoi T-50 or PAK-FA because the jet lacks proper stealth and its engine does not have "enough thrust", which are among 43 critical modifications or shortcomings it pointed out earlier.

Safran has to figure out a market for its engines or it wil lose the race and won't be able to keep up with American and Russian articles of future. It needs to be able to seek a market more than the 200/300 rafales that will be produced that it currently has.

For it to survive, it needs to partner or compete in another market which is as big or bigger. In my opinion the fgfa, amca and LCA engines provide a unique opportunity to safran to capture a new market. We have a need and they need to be able to compete and remain relevant in the future.

I would think that this should be our push. We partner with safran to create an engine. I also think that majority of 4 billion dollars we give will go straight to the engine. If that's the case, we take the fgfa as is and reserve the right to change out the engine with our own efforts later. We negotiate the costs to a lower number and push more into our own efforts towards creating a line of engines that we we research, manufacture and support in long run.

This allows us to fall back on Russian engines if our efforts don't pan out or get delayed.

Austin's post bears out Sandeep's zeroing in on "Babudom" as India's greatest enemy.Though in the Logisticsagreement,US "sensors" on Indian soil,monitored by US sats is v.questionable.

Maj.Gen. Suman in a def. mag recently about DRDO progress,esp. in the arty area,squarely lists out the failings in the huge org. why we've previously not bee able to design,develop and produce our own weaponry. Lack of accountability,no proper fiscal management-costs simply allowed to escalate without control,well-knowing that the money would be found,etc. The DRDO preferring to licence-build,reverse engineer,cut corners,instead of genuine creativity and invention .Lack of focus,and assurance of impossible goals ,tall tales/deadlines ,which are never kept abound. Almost all the major indigenous projects like Tejas,Arjun,etc.,have thus suffered. Nevertheless,the DRDO has now been broken into sev. clusters,projects cut by half,and slowly improvements are taking place. He says that "satisfaction of the services" is the best result.One recommendation he made was to acquire tech that we are incapable of from abroad,thus leapfrog obsolete tech and invest heavily in our own R&D.

Some of the best results we've had have been in the JV arena,like BMos,Barak-8 ,etc. When we are offered JVs for the very latest cutting edge milware from reliable sanction-free entities,we should act swiftly,and if affordable,seize the day. Mr.Modi is to visit israel shortly and we hope further Indo-Israeli def. cooperation.Here is one Israeli product that has tasted success just last week.Israel has a huge tech stockpile esp. in missile defence.The services need a range of new SAM defences to replace obsolete systems.AS a reliable supplier to India over decades,one is sure that we will benefit enormously from increased mil-cooperation with it.

ANALYSIS: ISRAELI MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS NOW PROTECT FIGHTER JETSBYYAAKOV KATZ MARCH 17, 2017 09:14 The Arrow missile system has lead Israel to its latest defense revolution.

IDF test-launches Arrow 3 ballistic missile interceptorWhen the Arrow missile system was delivered to the Israel Air Force in 2000, Israel became the first country in the world with the ability to protect itself against ballistic missile threats. It was nine years after the first Gulf War when 39 Scud missiles fired from Iraq had paralyzed Israel and the Jewish state now had a way to defend itself.

The Arrow was the first system of its kind – designed to intercept enemy ballistic missiles on their way to Israel outside the atmosphere and way before they even crossed into Israeli airspace. The concept was revolutionary – Israel is a small country without territory or strategic depth. There is no room for mistakes and missiles need to be intercepted as far way as possible.

If the reports are right from Friday morning’s predawn IAF raid in Syria, the Arrow missile has undergone another revolution – it can now be used to protect Israeli aircraft operating behind enemy lines from hostile surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

That is the big news from the early morning strike against what is likely another weapons shipment or arms stockpile on its way from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon. There have been reports of strikes before and this is also not the first time Syria fired SAMs at Israeli aircraft.

This time, though, the Arrow was used to protect the IAF jets. The Arrow – originally designed to intercept ballistic missiles – can apparently now be used against shorter-range SAMs. The world received a rare view of the way the IAF operates in complicated places like Syria where there are Syrian missiles as well as Russian missiles.

Philip wrote:Austin's post bears out Sandeep's zeroing in on "Babudom" as India's greatest enemy.Though in the Logisticsagreement,US "sensors" on Indian soil,monitored by US sats is v.questionable.

Maj.Gen. Suman in a def. mag recently about DRDO progress,esp. in the arty area,squarely lists out the failings in the huge org. why we've previously not bee able to design,develop and produce our own weaponry. Lack of accountability,no proper fiscal management-costs simply allowed to escalate without control,well-knowing that the money would be found,etc. The DRDO preferring to licence-build,reverse engineer,cut corners,instead of genuine creativity and invention .Lack of focus,and assurance of impossible goals ,tall tales/deadlines ,which are never kept abound. Almost all the major indigenous projects like Tejas,Arjun,etc.,have thus suffered. Nevertheless,the DRDO has now been broken into sev. clusters,projects cut by half,and slowly improvements are taking place. He says that "satisfaction of the services" is the best result.One recommendation he made was to acquire tech that we are incapable of from abroad,thus leapfrog obsolete tech and invest heavily in our own R&D.

The Arrow is a joint Israel (IAI) and US Missile Defense Agency program (through Boeing) and compared to a traditional SAM, is purely a BMD system for intercepts within the atmosphere (Arrow1/2) and outside (Arrow-3). It is not an AMD system. The SAM intercept that it did is a natural extension of the BMD mission and not a component of the AMD mission. India already has investments and successes when it comes to the Endoatmospheric and Exoatmospheric ballistic missile defense capability and where there is possibility of cooperation there already exist joint ventures (M/LRSAM/Barak 8 and sensors).

While there may be opportunities for further cooperation on things like directed energy India is now at a stage where she can pursue an independent ballistic missile defense capability.